Talk:West Pennard Court Barn

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:West Pennard Court Barn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 22:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I will review this and be back with comments soon. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing is abbreviated and choppy, doesn't flow, things like one-sentence paragraphs are not great form
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is very short, would like to see the two paragraphs fuller and more summation of the article
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	History section seems truncated and incomplete, would be interesting to know why it was nominated and what makes it special, besides being old and still standing.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A little too sparse, would like to see some expansion. Compared to a GA-class article from the same region such as Farleigh Hungerford Castle, seems quite sparse. I understand that this is a barn, not a castle, but there surely must be a bit more history about the building.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Caption on second image would benefit from being a complete sentence, but not critical to GA status.
	7. Overall assessment.

Also have a few stylistic hiccups to address directly:

1. Last sentence of first paragraph in history section reads, "Of the barns which survive the one in West Bradley is the smallest.[4]" Presumably you mean this barn that is the topic of the article? Perhaps simply say, "this one is the smallest" or "the West Pennart Court Barn is the smallest."
2. I spotted one misspelling and added an apostrophe to another word. I think the overall article would benefit from a thorough copyedit to check for other errors.
3. You have 13 sources and a cursory skim of them suggests that there is a lot more you could add about the history and architecture of the building, for example, that the dovecote was altered into a calf shed [1] or explain more that it has unusual contruction features that make it unique: for example the flying buttresses,[2] or that the bit on how the second floor is made of compacted dirt.[3]. Basically, this article could easily double in size and needs a bit more comprehensiveness to pass GAN.

Hope these comments give you some ideas for improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 06:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to make the prose flow a little better and combined some short paragraphs. I've expanded the lead a little along with the caption of the second image. I can't find much to add to the history or architecture (apart from the dovecote being used as a calf shed) or any specific reason for listing - the buttresses etc are not unique, however comparing it other similar structures I don't believe there are any specifically unique features to account for this. If you look at the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset you will see there are approximately 1,000 Grade I buildings in Somerset alone. If there was a unique earthen upper floor I believe this would be mentioned in the listing documents from Historic England and the county council - none of which mention it. I am struggling to see how "this article could easily double in size" from the sources I have been able to access, but would welcome further guidance.— Rod ^talk 20:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Style much improved! I took a look at the source material, and here are some more things I think you could consider adding to the article to help it meet the "broad coverage" criteria:

1. From [4]: "The barn was commissioned in the early 15th century by an abbot of Glastonbury Abbey." - That's interesting the article mentions tithes to Glastonbury Abbey in passing but doesn't note that the Abbey itself was instrumental in its being built. As a Yankee who doesn't know much about this period in the UK, that is an interesting insight on the culture of the times (as is the very concept of a tithe barn...) Also "early 15th c" may be worth adding, with perhaps a nod to the source below that claims "late c14 likely".
2. From [5]: "The walls are of coursed blue lias rubble, with quoins, dressings and porches of better-quality oolitic ashlar." - a paraphrase of this could be added, ("stone walls" seems a bit oversimplified here), and this offers a great opportunity for a few wikilinks, as I, the average reader, have no clue what "blue lias rubble" is, nor "oolitic ashlar" (for that matter, wikilinking quoins, dressings and explaining what "porches" means in this context)—but it sounds rather interesting! (ro if it's actually not, saying something - sourced - like "all of which is just cheap local rock" would also help) ;)
3. From that same source, "The barn [has] few architectural enbellishments to provide secure dating evidence, but a late c14 date seems likely." May be worth noting that precise dating of when it was built just can't happen and seems to be a minor dispute between sources as to late 14th century or early 15th century... I recall thinking, "when was this barn built, anyway?"

Basically, about another paragraph or so of expansion on when the barn was built and by whom, and some expansion on the architecture description, and I think you will be good to go. I realize that there isn't a lot to work with here, and there is no minimum length for GA beyond thorough coverage of the topic, but I think there is room for a bit more "thoroughness". Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional guidance. I have attempted to incorporate these as suggested.— Rod ^talk 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

YI think you've touched upon everything that can be sourced. Good to go, passing. Congrats! Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on West Pennard Court Barn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215221516/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/wra-1356292763044/view-page/item412748/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/wra-1356292763044/view-page/item412748/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)